SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Tuesday July 21 2020, @06:40PM
from the how-well-have-they-worked-for-you? dept.
from the how-well-have-they-worked-for-you? dept.
It's FOSS has an overview of 13 Raspberry Pi-like single board computers.
The Raspberry Pi Zero and the Raspberry Pi Zero W were added to the line up of Raspberry Pi's in the last few years. These ultra-small form-factor SBC's have been a big hit and continue to be a part of Raspberry Pi projects from the maker and DIY communities.
Due to the smaller form factor and the prices these boards are targeting, they have had to cut down on many features like a dedicated Ethernet port, slower processor (compared to their full-fledged cousins).
In an earlier article, we listed the best alternatives to Raspberry Pi. In this one, I'll list some alternatives to Raspberry Pi Zero and Zero W.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Tiny Yet Useful: 13 Raspberry Pi Zero Alternatives
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 20 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You are dishonest, but never to the point of hurting a friend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21 2020, @11:12PM (5 children)
The most important. Can you run a vanilla kernel on the board?
If yes, then it doesn't matter what happens to the manufacturer.
If no, is there upstream support for the SoC, and what is the history of the company on getting things upstreamed? If the SoC has reasonable support, and the board manufacturer has a good history of upstreaming support, and they say they are working on it for the current board, then maybe ok to bite.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday July 22 2020, @02:03AM (4 children)
I respectfully disagree. If you are choosing a SBC for integration in a product then being able to get that board to go to production is more important than the flavor of the kernel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2020, @02:43AM (2 children)
Welcome to the botnet of things (BoT), where 'integrators' rush to market with a shady kernel fork and out of tree patches. Manufacturer goes broke and device gets pawned.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 22 2020, @03:49PM (1 child)
Don't buy from a manufacturer with such poor business practices.
Preferred:
Manufacturer takes profit and flees to new location with new name under cover of darkness.
Satin worshipers are obsessed with high thread counts because they have so many daemons.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 22 2020, @03:51PM
Manufacturer with new name sells the customer list from former name, along with instructions on how to PWN.
Satin worshipers are obsessed with high thread counts because they have so many daemons.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2020, @02:54AM
I doubt most of these low-end sbcs are ever used as a basis for a commercial product but, I'll add a qualifier.
As a hobbyist who doesn't want to waste money on something that will become an unsupported brick with known security vulnerabilities in a year or two, mainline kernel support is a must.
If you were making a commercial product, and you cared about the security of your users, it would be best to use a device with mainline support as well, as it will get security updates (if past experience is a predictor, for decades), and not be locked to whatever version the barely functioning binary blob drivers kinda sorta worked with when it was shipped-- see just about every Android phone and IOT device ever shipped for examples of the disaster when this is not done.
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/1.Intro.html#the-importance-of-getting-code-into-the-mainline [kernel.org]